Being prepared without being paranoid

There are a couple of discussions on the SP forum at present regarding this topic - one to do with carrying weapons, and the other regarding some of the tactics of SP.
The title is taken from a similar thread on The Dog Brothers forum a while back which turned out to be quite interesting also.
I thought it would good to see what people here think - expecting that there will be a variety of different answers.

I grew up in the UK, in a very weapon free environment, and subsequently moved to The States where I hear gunshots on a regular basis.
I don't personally feel particularly threatened due to my lifestyle choices, however a work mate was car jacked at gun point a few months back - he drove off, knocking the guy over with his car door and ended up with a shattered drivers side window and another bullet in the door itself - but he got away without injury.
Another workmate was at her mothers house only last week and someone tried to do a home invasion at gun point. They were both about to walk out onto the front porch for a smoke and I guess the guy saw the door open and took advantage of the opportunity. Luckily both my friend and her mum slammed the door in the guys face and started yelling their guts out, and the guy ran away.
One of the cops that came to the house after, unofficially, recommended they go to the local sporting goods store and buy a shotgun.
Friends from here, specially if they are black or latino, take it as a given not to go to the ATM, the petrol station or the late night taco trucks if they can avoid it.

Now, this is the US, not the UK, so I know it's different here. But that said, even though I have traveled the world quite a bit, and can say that I live in probably the most dangerous place I've ever visited. STILL I believe the chances of something happening to me, personally are quite slight - not impossible, but still unlikely.

OTOH denying possibility and reality to me is not smart either. I know from training that I can recognize threat better now, and the fact that I can recognize it, and perhaps understand it can only be beneficial to my survival, if anything ever did happen. It seems I would have more time and options, or at least (hopefully! ) a good GCR, to use Richie's acronym.

I train because I like the idea of being competent, and as only I am responsible for myself - seems like a positive all around.

Now, I haven't gone into the paranoia side of things, because of course I am perfectly balanced and rational! . But I do see how one could walk around expecting the unexpected at any moment, and how that is not necessarily healthy at all. But paranoia can be there with NO training or with training. Does training make it better ...or worse?
Should one carry weapons because the perps have them already? Does that just create more chaos, or even the playing field?
Any thoughts gents?

I look at weapons in the same way I look at fire extinguishers. They are emergency tools which can allow you to hande otherwise impossible or extremely dodgy situations. As with the fire extinguisher, it is not because of the risk that you have them, but because of their usefulness if you happen to need one.

Paranoia is what you get when being vulnerable, and are unaware of what you might be dealing with, if anything. Then the mind spins a huge ball of paranoia for you. Because if it's dark so you can't see, how do you know that there is NOT a lion there?



Capability and awareness should normally eliminate the need for paranoia. Everything else is just normal madness.

good question to know the answer to--for oneself. i think, as RichardB says
that the anxiety and lack of confidence come from not really exploring your
core skill set, and the choices that may crop up. a new frontier is grounds
for much fear and trepidation, or at least too many pauses in the response
times--allowing dangerous loss of ground.

i've always felt mixed when it comes to weapons. the short answer, for me,
is that i'll carry one if it feels incidental. is that the right word. i sometimes
carry a knife to cut my apple into slices with--i'm aware that if the planets all
fall into to a place whereby said knife can, in a coordinated fashion, end up
in a utility like grip in my hand under pressure, fan-bloody-tastic. otherwise,
weapons for me are the source of insecurity because they often feel like my
only game plan. i'm fixated on the pocket my lock blades in--uh-oh, it's not
in my sleeve. just how fast could i draw it out without being nailed.

mostly i prefer not to carry them, it seems to put my head in a place of quicker
resourcefulness. using ready objects that present themselves like gifts from
the universe...well that seems appropriate. in a krav maga kind of way. hey,
there's rock. lets just make a bigger fist of it and nail that guy, lets just.

at the end of the day. i opt no weapons, especially in DC where everything is
illegal, and walking into office buildings with gov't security stations is pretty ordinary
to come across.

what helps my paranoia go away, almost entirely, is finding some young guys to
train for free--with the understanding that my training is their payment. there'll be
some rough-housing but mostly it should be a safe and largely injury free environment.
these free-bies represent the honesty of my training. sometimes the few i get that
pay have to be gently coaxed along because now we're into some relationship or other
whereby they're not paying me to mess up their hair and get dog doo on their training
gear outside during a particularly spirited session.

so in short. more rough-housing, less paranoia [my vote]
less weapons, less paranoia [also my vote]
but in agreement with RichardB on his point that a weapon is a tool. if you can think of
it that way, in a disassociated and detached way--oh look, i forgot i had this axe in my
boot...i think i'll wack that gun hand with it quickly and violently. well then, more power
to you. i feel more free with my hands, legs, and head ready to do at least the best they
can--all things being considered [however it pans out].

just a quick one coz Im getting shouted at (yes even ninja masters must obey)

meant to be spicy but not inflammatory

- I would only pull a weapon if i was deep in poo

- "deep in poo" would be somthing like fighting 3 big guys who are savvy and intent on hurting me badly

- a weapon that would be big enough to make a difference in that nightmarish scenario would need to be beyond the level of kubotan, folding knife, can of mace

- larger weapons become harder to carry and harder to DRAW, to get out when needed under pressure

- the larger /nastier the weapon the less legal it will probably be and the more damage it will do leading to more legal problems post fight

is it a double bind? asks the cheeky man, who we already know leans heavily on the "no weapons please we're British" side of this debate

what say my american/viking bretheren?

I mostly agree.

The point where a weapon becomes necessary and if not legally, at least morally justified (to me anyway) is the point beyind which unarmed skills are insufficient. I.e., the committed group scenario. In fact it would mostly apply to group situations IMO. But there are individuals out there who are monsters. Why they wrote the law to practically require that you turn it into a fair and square duel seems to be a ill thought out carryover of the Queensbury days. Once someone oversteps the law offering violence, and it's not just of the communication-type, but a credible, criminal threat. Then IMO anything goes.

The knife takes time to incapacitate unless it's big. You might be able to kill a man, but in a minute or five. It is the easiest to carry and requires the least physical committment to apply though. That last bit is important Vs. groups.

A blunt weapon can knock someone out or if powerful enough, break bones needed to give chase. Apart from BIG things like sledgehammers, the formula for force delivered says in simple terms, only as much weight as maximum speed allows. So it needn't necessarily be big. A well-made telescopic baton might be able to perform decently here. And is easier to conceal than something at the size of an escrima stick or some such thing. Blunt weapons might be the optimal choice as far as this goes.

With the knife, I'd say forget the folders (except for the big ones maybe). Something long and sharp for stabbing seems best. My idea of use centers around backpedaling and zoning away from people while puncturing lungs. Most people don't feel the knife in fights but this is something people tend to report feeling, and according to some stuff I read regarding high-security prisons people also have a tendency to go down. I don't know if there might be some similarities to the effects of the liver or solar plexus shot going on here. Sounds likely. Stabbing the eyes also seems like it might be worthwhile. The big idea is to keep them at bay while doing severe damage, to diminish them if they get in anyway.

Of course weapons are purely offensive tools. The only thing they can do is increase your ability to injure people. They are not shields. Carrying weapons because criminals carry, out of a defense point of view doesn't make sense to me. Against the lone knife wielder, I think armor would be far more useful. Although a weapon that gives you the capability to effectively attack from a bit longer range, and requiring less body committment can be very valuable. But mainly, weapons are for dealing with overwhelming numbers, where no amount of armor will be of use.

Between law and health, the latter must be priotitized every time IMO. Doesn't do you any good being legally dead. Of course, the illegal use of a weapon would be a desperation move where you literally sacrifice your freedom for the sake of survival. Knowing full well that you're choosing a long jail sentence instead of a grave or severe crippling. Ugly, ugly, ugly... no matter how you view it.

my whole game plan for the knife--until finally giving up on it, has
been by my own sensabilities [limitted though they may be]. i used
to find that it kept me in the 'life and death' mind, which i didn't really
wish to be in. i have the british sensability that says, "it's better when
none of us have weapons [knives usually] as a nutter must then be forced
to work hard for his imbalance" or as i've said in the states, "he can be
ninety pounds soaking wet, with no skills, and that gun will make him a
force to be reckoned with". frustrating for me. i carried a knife for a time,
then realized some choices i came close to making but thankfully never
did. one occasion where a guy went up an alley [i believe this to be true]
where moments before he was going to turn on me. i had my blade opened
and was ready to give him a new mouth mid-face. my intent was full on
in the turn, and i suppose if there's ever a question--as i believe in being
pre-emptive, the knife should not be part of that formula for preserving one's
safety. who knows really in those quick moments. i used to have a crazy mate
who thought it was funny to sneak up on people and yell, "STICK'M UP" and
see the minor heartattacks and pants-shites that came out of it. if he did
that to someone like me, when i was carrying, there would be a good chance
from my SOP that his corroted or face would have a giant slash across it. if
someone had a knife, my mind was only on slashing hands/wrists. these things
never happened to me, but were several times on the cusp of occuring. a man
banging on my mum's door screaming, was the only time a thrust was an option
for me. in the absence of knives, i found myself equally spirited to represent my
self, but less likely to land myself in jail and with moral and well as legal regrets.


these are decisions, as stated above, i'd rather work for with my hands or with
what the environment affords by way of options. a friend of my mum's was fooling
around with someone's girlfriend, his hand was lopped off by a machete. it changed
him forever--he went from flirty extrovert to anti social odd ball--never venturing
out much or desiring to have people over who were:
-male
-used to him before the cut

it made an impression on me, i reckon. my loony friend had his entire belly opened
by a machete. i think [all theory now] i wouldn't have a problem using someone else's
tool on them...i'm just a bit off put about carrying them.
even as my favorite movie on earth is 'MAN ON FIRE' with denzel washington. and one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZquBgO90es&feature=related [last 2 minutes]
of my favorite scenes is when he's cutting that guys fingers off whilst questioning him on
the abduction of a girl--cautorizing the wounds with a cigarette lighter before continuiing
with the next question...and the next finger. i was almost salivating for the scene--disturbing
though that is to admit. but this scene took place 'mid-war', not on a corner with one person
yelling at you. i see what Richie/RichardB mean about several comitted people. that would
definitely aid in altering my obviously casuistic view.

Quote :

A blunt weapon can knock someone out or if powerful enough, break bones needed to give chase. Apart from BIG things like sledgehammers, the formula for force delivered says in simple terms, only as much weight as maximum speed allows. So it needn't necessarily be big. A well-made telescopic baton might be able to perform decently here. And is easier to conceal than something at the size of an escrima stick or some such thing. Blunt weapons might be the optimal choice as far as this goes.

from the RB

dont forget knuckledusters and saps, could make all the difference at close range... if you can get the dusters on or the sap out in time

Quote :

so in short. more rough-housing, less paranoia [my vote]

from the Sage

truer words seldom spoken... reflexively? more rough housing = more confidence OR more contact = more confidence - which is one of the key messages of the Beta8 syllabus

Maija asked does more training = more paranoia?

if we get all anal and define paranoia as unreasonable fear/caution I would say YES it definitely can

given all the recent er, "unrest" I feel myself motivated to diversify from this field (not walk away from it, just do other stuff too) back into psychology... well when I put my "psychology head" back on recently I am surprised to find I am : 10 times more calm, confident, relaxed and capable of intereacting with the world AND of dealing with confrontation- how infuriating? whats all this training for then??!

does this say something about:

a. this field?
b. just my training specifically over the years?
c. just my personality?

I have to say that this overwhelming feeling of paranoia created by the reality tunnel of training for and therefore looking for enemies is for me now an ill fitting "hat" (to stretch a metaphor/ word thingy)

I think the psychologist (in me) is "safer" and more capable walking into a dodgy situation than the combatives instructor. Now isnt there something wrong with that?

Why is it? How can it be used? What does the psychologist mindset have or not have (no paranoia for one thing) that gives the advantage?

Im kicking this one your way guys... I have a sniff of an answer Im chasing but Id like to hear your thoughts first

Wisdom and power are complementry. The more we have of each the closer to center we will be.

dont forget knuckledusters and saps, could make all the difference at close range... if you can get the dusters on or the sap out in time


Also good weapons. Pre-deployment seems like a necessity to me. In the middle of a hectic fight is a bad time to fumble around after weapons. Weapons call for extra awareness and well defined parametres for use in advance.


does this say something about:

a. this field?
b. just my training specifically over the years?
c. just my personality?


Hmm... I think reality tunnel is the operative term here. The mind has a limited ability to focus. Tunnel-vision-itis. Buy a new car - everyone has the same car. Become a bird-watcher - birds everywhere. Overly focusing on fighting constructs and constricts your reality tunnel around that theme. I read a phrase somewhere. "what you focus on, becomes your life." Connected to pure brain stuff, not even goofy new age stuff. I think it can be boiled down to that. Which is why I am a big fan of compartmentalization.

Build the monster. Internalize the whole awareness game. And the whole deal. Then forget it and use the awareness level for noticing pretty women, money on the ground, friends and acquaintances, etc. The monster is there in the box so to speak, chilling at a subconscious level, because you're not thinking about that. Not paying attention and focusing on that. It'll pop up when tangible trouble patterns begin appearing among all the cars, puppies and the rest. Sort of like "hey, is that smoke I'm smelling? Is the house on fire?"

The violent mindset has a very limited range of use. The more versative psychologist is probably more useful most of the time. The thug is the guy you need for smashing someone physically, not much more.

Interesting thoughts there Richie, there seems to be many threads to discuss from what you said:

Quote:
" .. training for and therefore looking for enemies .."
Isn't that the difference between psychologists and 'combativists' in a nutshell? I suspect that psychologists are not experiencing this idea of an 'enemy' when they interact with dodgy people. Seems more like they view humans as puzzles to be unlocked rather than enemies?

You said that putting the psychology hat/head back on makes you deal with stuff in a more calm and confident manner ... Does that have something to do with wearing the combatives hat for a while as a prelude to this? Do they fit nicely together (the yin and the yang as it were) to achieve that middle path? Or does training combatives give you a skewed view of the world that is not necessarily healthy?

The most paranoid of my acquaintances have either built up tension because they have never had to fight but train alot, and have anxiety about 'failing' if it really happened, or else they enjoy the drama of 'being ready' for every eventuality. A few are not actually paranoid, but have lives that necessitate 'being ready' mostly by choice, either by the company they choose to keep, their job, or the neighbourhood they choose to live in.

Now I do believe that there are unreasonable people in this world - i.e. people that you cannot deal with in any other way than physically - that is if you have the misfortune to cross paths. So, at least for me, it seems smart to add the appropriate response to dealing with this type to my arsenal.
As a psychologist, do you think that this part of human nature is worth exploring for oneself ... because, like Everest, 'it's there'? I guess I do ...Ooo what's behind that door in my head ..?
Perhaps this is a dangerous game, who know's what one will find, right? But isn't that what psychology is about? Discovering how peopla tick?

I find that I have used the words 'play', 'puzzle', 'discover', 'explore', and 'game' in this post ....
I think they might have some part to play in answering your questions ...or maybe that's just my personality

hows it going? fellow UKer here too

it hink tho carry something isnt a bad thing look at it as an "equaliser" something that will even things up. it all depends on the person uses got the tool. if your a nut you'll use it if your not you'll only use it when you have too.

its all different in the US as more people have guns so i'd say in that case your alright.

here in the UK the most popular weapon is a knife. does that mean thats ok to carry a knife too? i think it is. i have one everday with me. you dont HAVE to have it to hurt you can use it for a whole list of every day things. i ALSO carry a COLD STELL DELTA DART and this stays with me 24/7/365. its made out of solid balistic plastic. you can use it for anything AND cant be picked up by metal detactors! look them up on:-

http://www.coldsteel-uk.com/index.html

they're cheap too. and handy to have with you.

ont he subject of being PARANOID it hink you have to look at it in context. to be ready and aware of whats around you isnt being paranoid! its realising and understanding that violence is a common and everyday thing now. there is nothing wrong with having a "broken ON switch" or training for it. isn;t that what we do here? hevean forbid if your guard was down and THATS when your attacked. all you need is a four inch blde to be pumped into you. i mean how many fast stabs can you get in within a second? 3-4? isnt THAT already too much?!

i agree that to go over that top can be seen as a paranoid outlook but thats again if you take it OUT of context. IN contect your just being aware and ready to save yours OR soemone elses skin.

Seems like this subject is very current.
From June 5th Chiron blog "Double Imaginary Bell Curves"

"Quote":
" ....."I'm good enough for what I'm likely to run into," he said, "I don't need to train for your environment."

It's not true and it is terrifyingly blind... yet it is true. He is likely to run into exactly nothing in his life. He is
adequately prepared for that. But violence comes in something closer
to a hockey stick distribution than a bell curve. It probably won't
hit this kid. But if it does he will likely need skills and ferocity
well beyond what I've needed."

And -
"One more- when someone says, "I don't let negative energy into my life,
I don't have to worry about this stuff." They are using false
reasoning. It will seem true more often than not because in this
society and this time most people's lives will never be touched by
extreme violence. It is one of those things that is safe to believe
until it isn't. Then it becomes catastrophically untrue. Or the
converse, "Thinking about violence causes violence." Not true,
obviously, though experiencing violence will damn well make you think
about it a lot. It is an excuse to stay in a mental comfort zone.
Nothing more."

Read the full post at: http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/

Quote :

He is likely to run into exactly nothing in his life. He is
adequately prepared for that.

HAHAHA! awesome...

Quote :

find that I have used the words 'play', 'puzzle', 'discover', 'explore', and 'game' in this post ....
I think they might have some part to play in answering your questions ...

I can feel the ideas crystallising but like Batman reaching for his shark repellent whilst tied to a big steel buoy by the Riddler : "Cant... quite.... reach.... it...."

I do have a quick question then I need to go back to work though

does good self protection = good fighting skills?

does good fighting skills = good self protection?

if no, why do we focus on it so much?

Richie said///
"I think the psychologist (in me) is "safer" and more capable walking into a dodgy situation than the combatives instructor. Now isnt there something wrong with that?

Why is it? How can it be used? What does the psychologist mindset have or not have (no paranoia for one thing) that gives the advantage?"

it' probably covered--as i skimmed, forgive me if it is...but the act of being combat ready--whether
as a still thing ready to explode, or as a half switched thing [half muscled and coiled] is sort of a leap
of faith in terms of other hats being switched off...but one hat in particular equiping you with the tools
by way of putting the blinders on the others. you're are tunnel visioned with a purpose...to some degree when you walk the streets 'switched on'. i'm not complaining. just remembering times i was
absent for most other subjects when my metaphorical scorpians tail was raised. usually when i've insulted someone by accident by being more concerned with my environment. not listened to someone,
in short sort of not been present when my mind is in the 'readying mode'. my body is have prepped in a way that reminds me of judo. someone's on top of you, you apply pressure to make him think your whole plan is to send him in the direction of the pressure. suddenly, the other direction and off he goes. same psychology for most of the head controls i do. the guy being man handled has braced himself for movement in a way he's anticipating, with the risk that he is wrong for his blinders.

when you are a psychologist you are the same but the opposite. still knowing a good deal how to manipulate the situation but as there is no risk [or not as much], you work without the added pressures that come with worrying about your own butt. you, like how shamans and kung fu death touch types operate, are 'using the same powers of manipulation' for what has been dubiously thought of as 'for the good'. in short, you are relaxed for all the NLP associations pschologists have with diverting, saying, "what shall we do to fix this", and using your knowledge of the psychology of the human mind to
manipulate for a 'cure'. knocking someone's block off who's imbalanced has been jokingly referred to as
"curing someone" in the past though .

as a psychologist, you're still in the control deck, still on the enterprize main ship deck on the verge of
giving the body commands. you're open to more possibilities. you are detached and watching yourself
and others, still able to rationalize things--de-escalation, future drinking buddy, girl at the bar. you're in the strongest part of your body, your head--and your blood flow is where it should be, your head. i should say 'one's head', so there's now misunderstandings [it's just i'm rushing, part getting my daughter to nap, part feverishly writing something ].

almost an empty mind of unanticipated possible responses to tense a person up. dissassociated in a good way. the hurricane eye.

my opinion of what came to my mind from the question. makes sense. by best fights came by surprize when there was no build up, only reactions in spades.


Richie also asked///
"does good self protection = good fighting skills?

does good fighting skills = good self protection?"

short but hopefully thought provoking answer..."it depends on the defense strategy"

if a counter fighter, than i don't think the answer is a consistent yes. but if a all out shit storm
'offense is defense' type of response...then a resounding 'yes'.
as 'once switched on' you are the attacker either way. this is why i train in this way. it is what i
would refer to as 'the short cut technique' that covers your bases and is more practical, and sometimes
more boring in a way, for some...not me though

does good self protection = good fighting skills?

does good fighting skills = good self protection?


To me they are layers of the same larger strategy.

SP is prevention - fighting is cure. to apply Russ' terminology. The two things seem to require different skill-sets. One does not necessarily translate to the other, either way. You might be good at preventing problems, but not be able to deal with it if prevention fails. Fighting skill is the last line of defense. The more critical if I had to choose, but of course; prevention is better than cure.

Self-protection is the driving skill - Fighting ability is the seatbelt and airbags. For those times when you fuck up or some idiot comes driving down the wrong side of the road. which is why you always want a nice, big, heavy car. Analogous to good physical condition, and weapons if available.

HAHAHA - This is great!
"Self-protection is the driving skill - Fighting ability is the seatbelt and airbags."

Different skill sets? Perhaps, but surely a bunch of overlap due to the brain being involved in both areas, no? Or when you say fighting ability, do you mean just physical competence, or do you mean everything that happens during 'the car crash', to use the car metaphor?
I.e. Trigger, appropriateness for the situation (when to stop), the will to prevail.

RichardB - How about Bond's Aston Martin? - armor plated, goes like a bat out of hell and armed for all eventualities - stylish too .....

awesome answers

Was thinking about the 'why do we focus on it so much?' part of the question.
I suspect there are basic answers like - it's fun, or it's a pressure release, or perhaps of all the options possible in a dodgy situation, fighting is the most crucial to get 'right'. There's so much more at stake so to speak - therefore practice more.
Part of me suspects, however, and this may be due to the fact that I am reading "On Killing", (by D Grossman) at the moment, that we are just far closer to the animal kingdom than we pretend to be.
Young animals play fight, and adult animals, from baboons to mountain goats vie for status by fighting. Now this hierarchy fighting is generally more in the range of posturing than killing, but I suspect so are many fights in the human world, where hierarchy, status, and for us humans, ego are just as important.
Obviously this is not always true, there are sociopaths and psychopaths, addicts and plain old criminals, but as far as why focus on fighting skills so much? Perhaps it's hard wired to some extent ...?

Also, I guess what we do have that is different from the animal kingdom is introspection, mental reasoning and verbal communication, so language and psychology are also part of our posturing arsenal .... seeing as a species we haven't gotten over the necessity of posturing as yet ....

Different skill sets? Perhaps, but surely a bunch of overlap due to the brain being involved in both areas, no? Or when you say fighting ability, do you mean just physical competence, or do you mean everything that happens during 'the car crash', to use the car metaphor?
I.e. Trigger, appropriateness for the situation (when to stop), the will to prevail.

I thought about the physical component primarily. But there should be some overlap on the pre-fight stage. As well as a few areas where the pure physical fighting skill is compromised for the sake of self-protection. I.e., legally.

The Aston Martin seems like the car for the job.

Why we focus on fighting and being animals seems very much so as far as I'm concerned. The main thing that is different about the human animal from the other animals seems to be a much higher flexibility of behavior. And we are able to communicate thoughts effectively and accumulate knowledge over generations. Apart from that we don't seem too damn special. It's why I talk about apes all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gc96BYHUbY

BTW Rory Miller tends to refer to a certain type of fighting as "the monkey dance." I like the term.

Quote :

Was thinking about the 'why do we focus on it so much?' part of the question.
I suspect there are basic answers like - it's fun, or it's a pressure release, or perhaps of all the options possible in a dodgy situation, fighting is the most crucial to get 'right'. There's so much more at stake so to speak - therefore practice more.

yeah i suspect those answers to be about right too, I used to say that I thought sportive/kickboxing/grappling mma type training had merits purely for this pressure release/fun/ "natural thing we are hard wired to do" element... then I dropped it for a few years when I saw bad sportive habits coming into my combative training (stepping out and circling after a strike etc)

Now that I really dont concern myself personally too much with training to fight in a street context (it happens so rarely and the last few times this past 12 months that my hand was forced I did just fine) I find myself drifting back to the old kick and thai training- its fun, keeps me fit, flexibile, more interesting than a treadmill

I think we may have covered this before, in fact I know we have in another thread, I just cant remember which, where we were talking about the dishonesty of focussin on more and more physical training (I think I said that saying it was shooting myself in the foot) when I know its got far more to do with preemptive action/awareness, social intelligence, behavioural flexibility and violent intent.

All of which is of course the realm of the "psychologist" persona.

So I think the cognitive dissonance and unease I feel is that the map just isnt matching the territory for me as a person- outside of my instructor role.

The behviourally flexible, quick witted, socially intelligent psychologist (with a nasty side if pushed), or the stiff paranoid combative flavoured "fight merchant" (this guy I see as being closer to my old persona who I had to be when I was getting into tear ups more frequently)? Who would you rather share a pasty and a mocha with?
and who do you think is safer whilst also enjoying a higher quality of life?

In answer to Maijas original question, which I think was actually more about weapons to be fair, I think its hard but not impossible to be prepared without paranoia creeping in.

But something we all should aspire to.

The original question was not specifically about weapons, but more a way of walking about through life, with or without them.
Would carrying a weapon affect the way you behave? Would it make you feel more or less relaxed? I've seen both, but as a generalization, carrying makes people see MORE enemies I think. (Not talking about LEO here or other professions). OTOH, I know from training, that my best chance against taller and heavier opponents, is facing them with a weapon .....

In the end, I think what you pointed towards, Richie :'The behaviorally flexible, quick witted, socially intelligent psychologist (with a nasty side if pushed)' is actually what I would count as being prepared without being paranoid, in that you have the awareness skills, plus verbal, and violent intent to call on as needed.
Now, if I lived a different life containing much more threat, then maybe the fight merchant would be more applicable ... and maybe when the zombies come, hats will have to change to adapt to the new situation.
But even then ... I suspect that survival also depends heavily on the first set of qualities ....
It's walking the middle path isn't it?
Mine's a curried chicken pasty and pint of tea please

Richie said///
"I think we may have covered this before, in fact I know we have in another thread, I just cant remember which, where we were talking about the dishonesty of focussin on more and more physical training (I think I said that saying it was shooting myself in the foot) when I know its got far more to do with preemptive action/awareness, social intelligence, behavioural flexibility and violent intent.

All of which is of course the realm of the "psychologist" persona. "

Maija said///
"...behaviorally flexible, quick witted, socially intelligent psychologist (with a nasty side if pushed)' is actually what I would count as being prepared without being paranoid, in that you have the awareness skills, plus verbal, and violent intent to call on as needed.
Now, if I lived a different life containing much more threat, then maybe the fight merchant would be more applicable "

Russell says///[ha ha...i do so loov referring to myself in the 3rd person ]
"to Maija's rather spot on points, i'd add another facet...to use a rather bad analogy, the lens of one's psychologist mind is afforded a vantage point from the sound background of pugilism--honestly learned, from the pads to the pavement. put these in the hands of a novice and [bad analogy coming] it may be a kin to allowing a 'green' [novice] systema chappy to go out and have a go at a tough nut with some boxing skills behind him...sort of floppy the porpoise meets the machete, a set up. no chopping off the foot when at first many of these guys need to replicate the experiences from which they do NOT draw. the wisdom of a vantage point is reached as a stage, i believe. and i'm aware of the hierarchical hint of levels this implies, but levels is probably what they need, exceptions to a fiew that are ready for that more evolved lens--or the dynamics [as Maija wisely indicates] that can either not afford reflection or are so unambiguous so as not to need it.

in short, you're spot on as usual Richie, but i think [from another thread] that this is the next level from which you and Maija once debated as being more refined and discriminating in your 'cures'...i believe the words you used were, "sit...good dog" on the lighter side of fights. and i would add, "bad day to be you" on the other end of the scale of issued cures and beatings.

Russ quote:
" .... the sound background of pugilism ...."

Absolutely - There is nothing unless you have real, meaningful skills.

Perhaps you do have to spend time at the far 'bad day' end of the spectrum, for a while before you can return to the center?
Perhaps we are to much creatures of delusion and habit for it to be any other way?
But how much time is necessary there? How much is too much? I suspect this will be different for different people?
What do you think?

absolutely a spectrum [in my humble opinion] of differentiated
instruction based on experience {bouncers to the front of the
line for their regular taste of it} to their aptitude for it [beginner
or otherwise] inclining how quick the learning curve.

i've seen many a 'tortoise' and many a 'hare'...for physical movement
intelligence in one catagory, as well as ability to perform when it counts
which is a mental thing, falling into another catagory.
maybe even a third catagory for fast twitch muscle fibers--speed.
and the range, or combinations of these factors represented in terms of performance.
not to exclude fighting styles that lend or do not lend to those growth
curves.

TKD wasn't the best style for me. my first TKD teacher, was also not the best
teacher--for me. i wasn't going to be leaping and legs verticle any time soon.
i should have stuck with boxing. now i'm aware of my strengths. i focus on
speed, forward drive, and high line, low line stuff. i could have saved myself
about 10 years in that learning curve. i like Richie's stuff as i believe it has the
exceptional potential of equiping more body-types and personality types--the
mark of sound principles.

many styles produce exceptional individuals. what's impressive is when
principles can be so widely received and utilized, so quickly.

i really believe that Richie's stuff could affectively be packaged that way. where are you
on the spectrum. here are the basics. here is for the advanced. here's what all need regardless.

or here's for the midlevel fight. here's for the all out dire shit storm.

i've been using Richie's fence stuff largely as a, "use this if they're walking up, hands
down, appearing to be reving up and getting the ritual going"

and his later concepts for the way fights have been going for 'guys approaching, hands in the
air--walking in your space'. nailing them and ignoring the fence all together--save for a range
finder or pike [love that word--sorry, pneumonic or not].

i've been calling it--metaphorically
"guns holstered"
"guns drawn"

as i've seen my hands as guns [personal joke] ever since the shotokan days of 'hands by the waist'.
hands kept low. in that case of course, the metaphor might grey the lines. tanto unsheathed at the
waist--back the fook up and watch your chin

too much time on the ashram, makes everything a bloody metaphor to me. images penetrate for
deeper meaning--handy tool, but now i digress